| …But
he was driven to a front-ranking position
Beer never claimed and never wished to be avant-garde.
In February 1919, though, he is very much perceived as a pioneer by
the then conservative Swedish art establishment. He takes part in a
large group exhibition (The February Group) at the famous Stockholm
gallery Liljewalchs, including important artists such as Bertil
Bull Hedlund, Gösta Adrian Nilsson (GAN),
Erik Detthow, Einar Forseth, Axel
Fridell and Carl Kylberg. In parallel, the
painter exhibits his personal production at a retrospective (1908-1918)
held in another gallery, Nya Konstgalleriet on Strandvägen. Which
only enhanced an apparent creative disruption: Nordic naturalism, impressionism,
neo-impressionism, post-impressionism, cubism or expressionism…
too many stages in too short a time, interpreted as contradictory. Where
critics beforehand had hailed Dick Beer as one of the few Swedish impressionists
faithful to French traditions, they are now completely baffled and react
to these new almost abstract tendencies with suspicion and hostility.
This would not have happened in Paris or Berlin, but Stockholm is another
provincial story. What Beer displays are mostly large canvases in Cézanne-style
cubism, showing a very personal touch. The fact that Beer is difficult
to classify seems to have been the major cause of the scandal. He has
met, become a friend of and worked with André Lhote,
and it is probably under this influence that the Swede refines his sense
of the monumental (see L’Escale painted by Lhote in 1913). We
could name many other French cubists from this time, such as Henri Le
Fauconnier (active until 1921) or Albert Gleizes, to make it clear that
Dick Beer’s profession de foi is to be found not
only in Paris but with the group Section d’or around Lhote, very
different from the analytical and synthetic cubism experienced by Picasso
or Braque. For most of these artists of the French
cubist movement, this new representation approach represents only elements
in artistic phases tending to expressionism, a more emotional art. At
Liljewalchs, Beer’s paintings are mostly dark, with dominating
ochre, wine-red or bottle-green. It melts together beautifully and the
overall colour sensation conveyed is more warm than cold. This dramatic
art appears to us distinct from that of his Swedish cubist colleagues
of the time and Beer’s contribution to emotions is an overwhelming
sensation of boyish mystery tour. A scandal it was. As so often in History
of Art, we have difficulties to grasp today what the fuss was all about.
Several portraits from this epoch are also remarkable in their forceful
approach: Ruth, his wife ; Philippe de Rougemont, father to the abstract
French painter Guy de Rougemont ; the portrait representing Mr Caldecott,
nephew of Randolph Caldecott, the great British illustrator and friend
of his father John Beer in London.
 |
kontast-ljus-skuggor-figur,
1919 |
But Swedish critics did not recognize
the importance of the Liljewalchs group exhibition in general and of
Dick Beer’s work in particular (a couple of years later his female
colleague Siri Derkert had a cubist exhibition and was as badly treated,
having to wait 30 years before consecration!). On the contrary, several
years after Picasso’s break-through on the continent, nobody in
Sweden understood that it made perfectly sense to be naturalist and
cubist at the same time (in other words: expressionist). Hence, Dr Ragnar
Hoppe (the same who 23 years later gave Beer a deserved place in Swedish
art history) executed the painter in public, through an article of extreme
violence in the conservative daily Svenska Dagbladet. Dick Beer (more
than his colleagues) is accused of pseudo-cubism, feeble
intimism, pseudo-modernism, lack of
courage and lack of ideas. His forms are
too easy and cheap. He is judged to be ludicrous,
insipid, and his art is full of awkwardness
!
"Painting a canvas in an impressionist
manner and then giving angles
to its forms with a ruler, that’s not cubism, either it is a misunderstanding
or it is humbug, in either case it is meaningless. But Beer is not even
consistent in treating such form. That we may remark in the big Circus
canvas, where some figures in the background have nothing to do with
those in the foreground"
(Continued)
|